For lawyers only

January 31, 2006

BIGLAW WEBLOGS HIDE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ASSOCIATES . . . According to Carolyn Elefant at My Shingle, some weblogs by large law firms are being ghostwritten by associates for the partners. Who gets the credit for the writing? Not the associates, of course. Says Elefant in "Why Would You Blog At Biglaw?":

[W]hat's both troubling and sad is that smart, young attorneys would so willingly forego ownership of their writing and analytical work, one of the few things that gives us any currency in this profession, simply because the firm demands it. Yes, I may be a lowly solo in the eyes of biglaw, but at least I can say that not only is my name on the door of my firm, it's on my web posts as well, every one of them.

That's BigLaw for you. At the BigLaw firm where I worked for six years, I once wrote (and then rewrote and rewrote) a 52-page article for a partner who teased me endlessly about the warm place he was traveling to present the article once I'd finished with it. I didn't get to bill my writing time and I didn't get to put my name anywhere in the article--not even in one of those silly footnotes I could have written thanking myself for my help in writing the article.

Stranger still, I still like the lawyer I wrote the article for. Throughout my time at BigLaw, I rarely blamed the partners for the way they acted; it was part of the culture, and I bought into it every two weeks when I cashed my giant paycheck. But I didn't stick around, either. Neither will a lot of those associates who are ghostwriting BigLaw weblogs today.

I'm exaggerating a little about my article, by the way. The partner was very grateful for my help and effusive in his praise for my writing. But I still didn't get any credit. My reward was getting to work with him on some of his "important" cases. What a strange time that was.

January 30, 2006

WAY TOO MANY "BLAWGS"? . . . Kentucky Law has highlighted a number of good law-related weblog posts in "Blawg Review #1," the first of a repeating series. It's a series that shouldn't be confused with the rotating blog carnival that's also called Blawg Review, which is hosted this week by Cyberlaw Central.

Meanwhile, I'm cringing over the fact that I just used the word "blawg" three times in a single paragraph. I try to avoid confusing jargon when I write, but sometimes the word "blawg" is hard to avoid.

You can find my opinion about the word "blawg" buried in the middle of Blawg Review #38, my recent list of blogging tips. Here was number six: Don't Be Obscure. Not only does the indiscriminate use of the word "blawg" lead to obscurity, but it gives readers the unintended impression that the weblog writer is running a private club.

Since this weblog is open to all visitors, even those who don't know what a blawg is, I promise never to use the word unless I absolutely have to.

January 27, 2006

GADGET UPDATE: The Archos AV500 . . . Are all your handheld video players worn out from overuse? Then here's your next purchase--

It's the Archos AV500. It's nearly weightless, records directly from your TV, and displays music, photos, and videos. With a capacity of up to 100GB, you'll be able to carry around every season of 24 and Lost and Desperate Housewives and still have plenty of room left over for the next dumb TV series that comes along. That's progress! From about $450 to $625.

January 26, 2006

THE UNNAMED ASSOCIATE SPEAKS #2: Be Careful What You Wish For

by the Unnamed Associate

There's definitely a pecking order at a law firm, no matter how big or small
it may be. For instance, there are many cases which are not officially "my"
case, but on which I do the majority of the substantive work - research and
writing motions, contacting the client, getting things set for hearing
before the court. But a colleague's name goes on everything, and he gets to
handle anything fun which comes up. This could be pretty annoying if I
didn't have my own substantive cases to handle, and even so, it's annoying
when something fun comes up – like a trip out of town – and I can't go
because it isn't "my" file.

Earlier this week, however, I got to take my first business trip as a
lawyer. I went to the state capital for some depositions – two days of
depositions! This is very exciting to a new lawyer, because everything that
is new and sounds important seems exciting. Plus, I get to stay at a hotel
in a city not my own! What more could I want. I was so thrilled that I was
sent this time, rather than the guy whose name is on the case.

TWO WONKETTE STAND-INS WITH LEGAL TIES SPOUT OFF . . . Chris Geidner, the Law Dork, is guest-posting at Wonkette today. In a post at Law Dork, Geidner urged his readers to "come on over" to see his performance.

Meanwhile, the other law-related Wonkette stand-in, David Lat, recently told the New York Times what he thinks about fact-checking on the Web:

Fact-checking on the Web is: you put up something on the Web and if it's wrong, somebody e-mails you and tells you it's wrong, and you put something up saying, 'It's wrong.'